This is Mino (for iPhone). It was made by a company called Xio Interactive:

Tetris Holding has successfully sued Xio on the grounds of copyright and trade dress infringement. Tetris Holding has tried this before against omgpop.com's Blockles game, but they settled out of court.

QUOTE

Tetris Holding argues that Mino infringed the following copyrightable elements:

Seven Tetrimino playing pieces made up of four equally-sized square joined at their sides;

The visual delineation of individual blocks that comprise each Tetrimino piece and the display of their borders;

The appearance of Tetriminos moving from the top of the playfield to its bottom;

The way the Tetrimino pieces appear to move and rotate in the playfield;

The small display near the playfield that shows the next playing piece to appear in the playfield;

The particular starting orientation of the Tetriminos, both at the top of the screen and as shown in the ‚€œnext piece‚€Ě display;

The display of a ‚€œshadow‚€Ě piece beneath the Tetriminos as they fall;

The color change when the Tetriminos enter lock-down mode;

When a horizontal line fills across the playfield with blocks, the line disappears, and the remaining pieces appear to consolidate downward;

The appearance of individual blocks automatically filling in the playfield from the bottom to the top when the game is over;

The display of ‚€œgarbage lines‚€Ě with at least one missing block in random order; and

The screen layout in multiplayer versions with the player‚€™s matrix appearing most prominently on the screen and the opponents‚€™ matrixes appearing smaller than the player‚€™s matrix and to the side of the player‚€™s matrix.

Mino, I liked the game a lot.Because it had multiplayer over internet unlike EA Tetris (and most of iphone games). It had few alternative ways to control the game unlike EA Tetris (which is important on device with limited controls capabilities like iphone). It had online leaderboards unlike EA Tetris. It had well made chat features that i found unique on iOS platform.

This is absurd that while game rules are not copyrightable, making game with same rules would allow competitor to fight you. Imagine lawsuit form chess maker against other chess maker, that would say:-chessboard is 10x10-there is exactly same set of piecesWell yes, it is, because it is how chess works, and it is how it is played. Sure you can come up with infinite number of rules, but's that not the point of chess.

so when at this list of items that they claim are infringing, one part of them are essential rules of the game and other part are things very generic that are not unique to tetris (i.e. features common among many other games).

Sure we have copyright law, but don't forget we also have antitrust law.

On side note I wonder what tetris corp and its lawyers have to say about Feevo and it's similarity to Bejeweled.

Xio's argument would create "an exception to copyright [that] would likely swallow any protection one could possibly have."Ě

They say that like it's a bad thing...

QUOTE

Tetris is a puzzle game where a user manipulates pieces composed of square blocks, each made into a different geometric shape, that fall from the top of the game board to the bottom where the pieces accumulate. The user is given a new piece after the current one reaches the bottom of the available game space. While a piece is falling, the user rotates it in order to fit it in with the accumulated pieces. The object of the puzzle is to fill all spaces along a horizontal line. If that is accomplished, the line is erased, points are earned, and more of the game board is available for play. But if the pieces accumulate and reach the top of the screen, then the game is over. These then are the general, abstract ideas underlying Tetris and cannot be protected by copyright nor can expressive elements that are inseparable from them.

Good info...

All in all, it doesn't appear that Xio had much of a case, really, so I can't get on board with this being the death toll for fan games.

what bother me most is that all modern mainstream games have very same boring gameplay (after you remove all non-interavtive cinematic things and scripted actions that make games look awesome on trailers) and somehow only ttc has problem with other games being similiar to their. imagine if this lawsuit was translated to fps game. omg look at those stolen "expressions", both games have cross-hair and on screen ammo count, movement are same (how it supposed to be diffrent, maybe i should make character teleport instead of walk...) and same types of guns (despite you can come with infinite number of diffrent weapon sets).

it is popular concept to make car analogies. so imagine if one company claimed that having 4 wheels it's trademark (because surely idea of car makes posible to make cars with other numbers of wheels). seats are instlaled i way that everybody is facing driving direction, you could make passager seat face opposite direction or maybe put driver seat upside down without harming any car functionality, no? and i can go on and on with those analogies, but i don't want to cause boredom.

tetris is so simple concept that it will always look and feel similiar no matter what how you execute it. you can make game upside down and use pentominos, but it won't stop TTC in making another list of 10 things that are same.

What I don't get is if these things aren't supposed to be protected by copyright why does TTC continue to take down games? Is money above the law in this case?

TTC has a history of aggressively pursuing clones... because they must. They must prevent their intellectual property from trademark erosion. If they don't send out these cease and desist letters, the word "Tetris" would eventually become genericized to mean "any Tetris-type game."

For example, Duncan used to have the trademark for "yo-yo." They failed to protect it, though. When they tried suing Royal Tops Company for using their trademark, the court decided the term "yo-yo" had entered common speech and that Duncan no longer had rights to it. The same thing happened with "aspirin" (of which Bayer used to have rights to).

Up to this point, I can understand and even sympathize with TTC. However, with this trade dress bulls***, they've gone too far. Imagine if Kleenex started suing other tissue companies because their tissues looked white, were soft, and were packaged in a rectangular box! Sure, Kleenex should defend its trademark, but it would be absurd for them to go after competitors the same way TTC is going after Xio.

haha, would we can hope for is that one day TTC will taste it's own medicine. For example zynga will sue them for infriging their trade dress of fb games in tetris battle (you know, this gui, friends integration, energy, coins, exp bars and other bulls*** looks quite familiar). I don't think screenshot of tetris battle and farmville looks much diffrent especially when you crop it to where you want to focus on. then i imagine we will hear very diffrent optinion from TTC what is idea and what is expression.

The Supreme Court has explained that a feature is functional if: ‚€œit is essential to the use or purpose of the device or when it affects the cost or quality of the device‚€Ě or the right to use it exclusively ‚€œwould put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage,‚€Ě meaning it is ‚€œessential to effective competition in a particular market.‚€Ě Traffix Devices v. Mktg. Displays, 532 U.S. 23, 33 (2001). The color and style of the pieces are not functional under any one of these standards. These elements are not mandated by the use or purpose of the game because numerous other choices are available to a game designer without affecting the functionality of the game. As I noted earlier, Xio‚€™s own expert admitted that there are ‚€œalmost unlimited number‚€Ě of ways to design the pieces and the board and the game would still ‚€œfunction perfectly well.‚€Ě Pl. Stmt. of Undisputed Fact, at ¬∂ 53. Nor has Defendant shown that other choices would at all affect either the cost or quality of the device or that these choices are essential to effective competition.

First off, three out of the seven tetrominoes are different colors when comparing the two games. There are only so many colors. Can you really expect him to express the idea of styling a piece by some other method than visible light waves? Would gamma or radio waves be acceptable? Secondly, there are Tetris brand games that delineate the pieces' boundaries and games that do not! As Tetris brand games have hundreds of different styles among its many implementations, there's no way for Xio to express a style not already represented by at least one of Tetris' games.

QUOTE("Judge Wolfson")

The pieces in Tetris are based on combining four equally sized squares in different patterns, but the idea of Tetris‚€”fitting different shaped pieces together to form complete lines‚€”can be achieved with nearly limitless shaped pieces and geometric shapes. Xio‚€™s expert, Jason Begy, agreed at his deposition that a ‚€œa game designer could design the playing pieces for a video game in an almost unlimited number of ways‚€Ě and that the specific Tetris pieces were ‚€œnot necessary‚€¶to design a puzzle video game.‚€Ě Pl. Stmt of Undisputed Fact, ¬∂ 53. The video evidence also shows how the pieces move in precisely the same manner. Again, there are almost unlimited options for expressing the pieces‚€™ movement and rotation and one can play the same game even if different styles are used or the game has a different look and feel to it, which was also admitted by Xio‚€™s expert during his deposition. Id. The style, design, shape, and movement of the pieces are expression; they are not part of the ideas, rules, or functions of the game nor are they essential or inseparable from the ideas, rules, or functions of the game.

Take it from me, Judge Wolfson, the shape and movement of the pieces are indeed part of the ideas, rules, and function of the game! The creator of the game himself decided to use tetrominoes instead of pentominoes due to how he found that pentominoes were a shape too difficult to play with. On the other hand, trominoes would make the game too easy and redundant. Using tetrominoes is an essential rule and function to the game's quality. Moreover, there are NOT an unlimited number of ways to express the pieces' movement and rotation! There are only so many directions a piece can go and only so many geometric motions to maneuver a piece.

I don't know much about law, but this case seems pretty flimsy. I wonder if Xio's lawyers dropped the ball here.

I'm talking about the general public, not what we think. I bet that Tetris is generic enough that a significant number of people would not make a distinction between "official" games and clones, provided the supplied clones are of a reasonable quality.